Advertisement

We need your help now

Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.

You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.

If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.

An image submitted with the planning application proposing the building of the sound barrier. DCC
Wetherspoons

Dublin City Council refuses permission for sound barrier at Wetherspoon's Camden Street pub

JD Wetherspoon proposed the 43 ft high and 26.5ft wide sound barrier to allow it re-open a 244 person capacity beer garden attached to its ‘super-pub’.

DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL has refused planning permission to contentious plans for a sound barrier for a JD Wetherspoon’s pub beer garden on Camden Street.

JD Wetherspoon proposed the 43 ft high and 26.5ft wide sound barrier to allow it re-open a 244 person capacity beer garden attached to its ‘super-pub’ at the 89 bedroom Keaven’s Port hotel.

In April of last year, the English-headquartered pub operator temporarily ceased trading at the beer garden after complaints from local residents’ over noise levels from its operation.

The planned sound barrier faced strong opposition from parents of children attending an adjacent Montessori School, the D2 Creche and Montessori and from local residents with one local resident, Suzanne Willoughby, telling the council that it makes her angry to think that anyone thinks that building a wall which is taller than the Berlin Wall “is an appropriate solution to squeezing more punters into the pub”.

Now, in a comprehensive rejection of the scheme, the Council has stated that the sound barrier would create an unacceptably high, solid barrier in an inappropriate material and would seriously injure the architectural character, setting, special interest and amenity of protected structures within the area.

The Council also concluded that the sound barrier “would create an unwelcome precedent for such an unsympathetic intervention”. 

The planning authority also found that the development would contravene policies of the current Dublin City Council Development Plan 2022 – 2028 and “would seriously injure the amenities, or depreciate the value of property in the vicinity”.

One of those to object was Naoise McNally. She and her husband, well known TCD economist professor Ronan Lyons, have two small children attending the D2 Creche and Montessori nextdoor to the hotel.

McNally said today: “We are really pleased with the decision. It is a relief because it is great that the council took on board the concerns of the parents, but also the residents and business owners of the consequences that a grant of permission for the wall would have unleashed”.

The mother of three said: “The enormous scale and its proximity to the creche would have made it really oppressive for the children at the creche and if had come to fruition would have made for a prison-like atmosphere there. For little tiny children, it would have been very unpleasant.

“Childcare in this city is very difficult to come by and such high quality childcare should not be compromised for outdoor drinking for people when we have plenty of that in the city.”

McNally said that she hoped that JD Wetherspoon would not appeal the refusal to An Bord Pleanala.

The planner’s report which recommended a refusal concluded that the closing of the courtyard reduced the negative impact on adjoining properties, however the testing of the proposed acoustic wall could not confirm that it will achieve the target noise criterion.

A submission by JD Wetherspoon’s consultants, Brock McClure stated that the closure of the courtyard demonstrates JD Wetherspoon’s commitment to being a good neighbour and working with residents to resolve issues whenever they may arise.

In their 26 page planning report, Brock McClure stated that “the barrier has been developed to protect all persons who will live, work or engage in other activities in the immediate vicinity of the courtyard from noise disturbance from the outside seating area”.

 

The report states that particular emphasis has been paid to nearby residential properties surrounding the premises.

Your Voice
Readers Comments
38
This is YOUR comments community. Stay civil, stay constructive, stay on topic. Please familiarise yourself with our comments policy here before taking part.
Leave a Comment
    Submit a report
    Please help us understand how this comment violates our community guidelines.
    Thank you for the feedback
    Your feedback has been sent to our team for review.

    Leave a commentcancel